Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Laxmi,J.
This appeal has been filed in the name and on behalf of the Committee of Management Shri Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 through its alleged Manager Shri Sarju Prasad Dubey. It questions the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.7.2016 whereby the petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein has been allowed, and the order of the Deputy Registrar, Faizabad dated 6.8.2013 giving directions to hold fresh elections and the consequential orders finalizing the election schedule and membership dated 23.8.2013 as well as the elections held on 1.9.2013 has been quashed.
The Society has been allowed to be managed in the meantime under the supervision of the Principal of a Government Inter College as was directed earlier by a learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 13.3.2013 in Writ Petition No.5043 (MS) of 2010.
The Deputy Registrar has been further directed to re-consider the entire matter particularly the objections raised by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the allegations of forgery, concoction and fabrication of documents resulting in the passing of the previous orders of the Deputy Registrar.
The Society has established a Sanskrit School and was being managed by a Committee of Management. The said Committee that had been previously elected and was in power had held elections on 10.8.2005 on the strength whereof renewal was sought and the Society was renewed under the 1860 Act on 19.3.2008 for a period of five years w.e.f. 10.10.2005.
According to the contesting respondents, a letter was dispatched on 12.2.2007 to the Deputy Registrar informing him about the aforesaid elections dated 10.8.2005 and alongwith the letter the proceedings dated 10.8.2005 were also sent containing the name of all 26 members of the General Body which did not include the name of either one Hriday Narayan Mishra or the appellant Sarju Prasad Dubey.
The dispute began thereafter when Hriday Narayan Mishra, who according to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was a rank trespasser, operated hand in gloves with one Maan Singh hatching a conspiracy in the office of the Deputy Registrar, and manipulated the status of all genuine documents by replacing them and changing them with documents bearing forged signatures of the respondent No.2, including altering of the entire membership of the General Body as also the list of office bearers that had been filed before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. According to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, this was again attempted by Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra through some forged documents dated 9.9.2009 and a forged letter allegedly signed by the appellant informing of the holding of fresh elections held on 10.8.2009 that was allegedly confirmed on 6.9.2009. This document for the first time indicated Mr. Man Singh as the President and the appellant/Sarju Prasad Dubey as the Vice-President and Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra as the Manager. It also reflected the respondent No.2 as a Member of the Committee of Management and according to the respondents, the signatures of the respondent No.2 were forged on the said letter. This letter finds place as Annexure - 9 to the original record of the writ petition.
On discovering this development, the respondent No.2, who claims himself to be the then Manager filed a complaint and also requested for supply of all the documents that were forged and fabricated and inserted into the file including the list of members of the general body vide representation dated 26.10.2009. Since Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra had been shown to be the Manager and against whom the complaint had been filed, he also submitted a reply giving a list of Members of the General Body 25 in number claiming that they are all Life Members of the Society and they had deposited the fee. This was countered by a detailed reply by the respondent No.2 on 29.1.2010. A copy of the same is Annexure - 12 to the record of the writ petition and it categorically states that documents at pages 370 to 385 be all cancelled as they are fake and manipulated. At the same time, it was also alleged that the entire membership of the General Body as reflected by Hriday Narayan Mishra was fake and a particular grievance was raised about Hriday Narayan Mishra that his membership that was being claimed w.e.f. 12.7.1976 was fake, inasmuch as his date of birth as shown in his records is 6.7.1967. It was therefore alleged that if the date of birth of Hriday Narayan Mishra was 6.7.1967, then he was a minor as on the date of the alleged acquisition of membership on 12.7.1976 being only 9 years old and this established his forgery and fake identify to somehow or the other to enter into the Society. It was also alleged by the contesting respondents that under the Right to Information Act, the Membership List was provided to the respondent No.2 for the years 1982 till 1986 which nowhere mentioned the name of either Man Singh or Hriday Narayan Mishra or any of their associates. A copy of the list has been filed as Annexure - 13 to the writ petition which also does not find the name of the appellant Sri Sarju Prasad Dubey. The forgery by introducing fake lists of office bearers and members of the general body subsequently and removing the original ones reflected otherwise and these fake lists had never seen the light of the day before the dispute arose. It is this forgery and fabrication that was complained of by the respondents.
On the strength of his alleged fake elections dated 10.8.2009 as Manager/Hriday Narayan Mishra succeeded in getting the signatures attested from the District Inspector of Schools on 12.3.2010 but that was stayed by the Joint Director on 12.3.2010 itself.
The contesting respondents thereafter made complaints before the Registrar and Deputy Registrar respectively on 17.5.2010 and 24.5.2010 alleging that these manipulations and fake documents were inserted with the connivance of the officials of the Registrar, particularly one Shekhar Babu (Office Staff) who with great difficulty disclosed the contents of the order sheet after avoiding to the best of his ability. Alongwith the said letters, the respondent No.2 also submitted the Membership Lists of 1989, 1990, 1993 and of the year 2000 stating therein that these documents were available on the record of the file at particular pages to demonstrate that Hriday Narayan Mishra and his associates were never members and they have tried to usurp the Society by inserting a Membership List and list of office bearers which are fake. Not only this, other documents pertaining to the institution were also forged by endorsing the fake signatures of Ram Nath Mishra/respondent No.2.
Despite this entire material being placed on record, the objections filed by the respondent No.2 were rejected and vide order dated 13.7.2010, the Deputy Registrar acknowledged the documents and membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra and held him to be the validly elected Manager. The said order of the Deputy Registrar dated 13.7.2010 was challenged in the High Court before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5043 (MS) of 2010 that was enclosed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Registrar in the petition giving rise to this appeal which is on record.
There was a previous dispute of the Society that had commenced in 1993 but the same would not be relevant for the purpose of the present controversy except for the fact that the dispute of elections was decided by the Prescribed Authority, Jalalpur, Faizabad vide his order dated 18.6.1999 recognizing Sri Ram Nath Mishra and his Committee as the valid committee subject to any challenge being raised in this regard. The fact however remains that Ram Nath Mishra was throughout contesting the claims as against his Committee of Management, and with this new dispute also raised all the aforesaid pleas against Hriday Narayan Mishra and his associates before the Deputy Registrar/ who on 13.7.2010 held that Hriday Narayan Mishra was a valid member since 1976 and had been elected as a Manager on 12.8.2008. These elections were also according to the Deputy Registrar recognized by the District Inspector of Schools in respect of the institution.
The aforesaid order dated 13.7.2010 was challenged by Ram Nath Mishra/respondent No.2 by filing Writ Petition No.5043 (MS) of 2010 as noted above where one of the principal grounds of challenge was the continuance of Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra as Manager and recognized by the District Inspector of School being invalid on the very fundamental issue of his date of birth as referred to here-in-above and additionally, the manipulations made in the records of the Deputy Registrar's office by inserting papers and files of fake lists that had been detailed in the representations on record and mentioned here-in-above. The said writ petition was contested by Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra and after contest, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 13.3.2013 came to the conclusion that the Deputy Registrar has adopted an incorrect course of appreciating the evidence on the issue relating to the date of birth of Hriday Narayan Mishra and accordingly directed a High Level Enquiry to be conducted by the Secretary of the Secondary Education with regard to the correct date of birth of Hriday Narayan Mishra. The Deputy Registrar was directed to proceed to decide the issue afresh after addressing to the submissions of the parties concerned and a direction was given to examine the matter again after receiving the report from the Secretary, Secondary Education about the date of birth as claimed by Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra.
In the meantime, the Society was directed to be managed by the Principal of the Government Inter College, Ambedkar Nagar. Thus, under the orders of the Court, the management of the Society stood superseded with the directions of deciding the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment dated 13.3.2013 where a serious doubt had been expressed by the Court itself about the date of birth of Hriday Narayan Mishra who was claiming himself to be the Manager as against the respondent No.2/Ram Nath Mishra. The said judgment is Annexure - 18 to the writ petition.
When the matter returned back before the Deputy Registrar as per the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the Deputy Registrar was informed by the Secretary of the U.P. Board of Secondary Education vide letter dated 1.5.2013 that Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra, S/o Durga Prasad Mishra had appeared in the High School Examinations of 1975 who passed the High School in 3rd division with a roll number and his date of birth as reflected therein was 6.5.1960 and not 6.5.1958 as alleged by Hriday Narayan Mishra nor 6.7.1967. Thus, it was established that Hriday Narayan Mishra had filed a fake document and had depicted a wrong date of birth, i.e., 6.5.1958 before the Deputy Registrar.
On receiving this information, the Deputy Registrar proceeded to again re-hear the matter and Hriday Narayan Mishra also contested the same by filing his application on 15.7.2013. The respondent No.2 also filed his objections, written submissions and letters alleging the manipulations in the entire Membership List of the General Body and the office bearers once again and also levelling allegations against the manipulations that were made in the file with the connivance of the officials of the office of the Deputy Registrar. Allegations were also made against the Deputy Registrar about mala fides and his personal conduct before the Registrar and the District Magistrate by the respondent No.2 stating that there was total non-cooperation by the officials and that the entire office of the Deputy Registrar, Faizabad was bent upon to help Hriday Narayan Mishra. The applications and the written submissions filed by the respondent No.2 indicate a clear allegation being made about the issue of the forgery and fake documents being replaced and inserted in the file including the membership of the General Body and the list of office bearers.
The Deputy Registrar while reconsidering the matter recorded a clear finding that the date of birth of Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra, if taken to be 6.5.1960, as correct, then on 12.7.1976 he was a minor and therefore his membership was declared to be a nullity under the order dated 6.8.2013.
The Deputy Registrar however abruptly closed the matter by declaring that the list of 25 members as submitted by Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra would be treated to be valid for holding of fresh elections except his name and therefore, the General Body List of 24 members excluding Hriday Narayan Mishra was accepted by the Deputy Registrar which also formed the basis of the directions issued on 23.8.2013 to hold fresh elections. This list included Man Singh as also Sarju Prasad Dubey, the appellant who were throughout being contested by the respondent No.2 as being fake members for various reasons as indicated in their objections and representations. The list of 24 members was entirely contrary to what that was relied upon by the respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 had clearly asserted that the lists which had been received by him under the Right to Information Act from the office of the Deputy Registrar for certain periods as referred to here-in-above nowhere indicated the names of either Hriday Narayan Mishra or Sarju Prasad Dubey and their associates who find place in the list approved by the Deputy Registrar. The respondent No.2 throughout disputed his signatures that had been forged by Hriday Narayan Mishra to manipulate the documents and inserting them in the file of the office of the Deputy Registrar.
The Deputy Registrar nowhere addressed himself to this issue of the electoral college which went to the root of the matter, namely, the persons entitled to participate in the elections. The constitution of the electoral college would obviously have a material bearing directly on the holding of the elections and if the same has a fake foundation then any election held on the strength of such a list without adjudicating the controversy of the said membership would be an erroneous exercise of holding of elections as contemplated under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The respondent No.2 aggrieved by this order filed Writ Petition No.5518 (MS) of 2013. After the said writ petition was filed, the respondent No.2 also came to know about the directions issued by the Deputy Registrar on 23.8.2013 to hold the elections on the basis of the disputed list of membership which was held on 1.9.2013 in which the appellant Sarju Prasad Dubey claimed himself to have been elected as Manager. Consequently, the said writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn vide judgment dated 4.9.2013 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition if there is a fresh cause of action.
The fresh writ petition No. 6484 (MS) of 2013 was filed challenging the order dated 6.8.2013, the consequential order dated 23.8.2013 and the elections held on 1.9.2013, which has given rise to the present appeal. The learned Single Judge while addressing himself to all the issues raised as well as the preliminary objections raised by the appellant therein came to the conclusion that the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 was entertainable and maintainable. Secondly, the Deputy Registrar had completely misdirected himself in not proceeding to touch the issue of membership which was the bone of contention as the disputed membership lists had been depicted by none else than Hriday Narayan Mishra whose own membership had been found to be invalid. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the correctness of the electoral rolls, namely, the list of entire 25 members as depicted by the appellants through Hriday Narayan Mishra had to be examined, and having not done so and having limited the enquiry only to the membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra, was an erroneous approach which was not the intention of the learned Single Judge while disposing of Writ Petition No.5043 (MS) of 2010 on 13.3.2013. Accordingly, the order dated 6.8.2013 and the consequential actions were quashed and the status of management as was existing on 13.3.2013 as directed by the learned Single Judge through the Principal of the Government Inter College, Ambedkar Nagar was maintained.
Assailing the aforesaid judgment, Dr. L.P. Mishra alongwith Pt. S. Chandra for the appellants contend that the Deputy Registrar was perfectly justified in confining himself only to the issue of membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra as directed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 13.3.2013 and there was no scope for him to travel beyond the same and decide the issue of the entire membership of the General Body. They contend that if the respondent No.1 was aggrieved by any such membership dispute then he ought to have filed a Civil Suit. Even otherwise the said respondent had no authority to maintain a writ petition in the name of the Committee of Management of the Society alleging himself to be the Manager which did not exist. Dr. Mishra submits, by bringing on record the membership list of 1977-78 that was filed alongwith the counter affidavit of the appellant as Annexure No.11, that the said list is also countersigned by the respondent No.2 and being a valid list the same also contains the name of the appellant-Sarju Prasad Dubey as well as Hriday Narayan Mishra and the respondent No.2 himself. This list also contains the name of Man Singh.
He also submits that once the elections have been held on 1.9.2013, it is a fait accompli and the dispute of the election can now only be raised before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and cannot be a subject matter of writ petition which aspect has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge. He therefore asserts that this question of fact also could not have been entertained in the writ jurisdiction and therefore, the interference by the learned Single Judge was uncalled for. He submits that the legal position is settled through several decisions on the aforesaid issues and therefore, the same should be invoked and the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
Countering the said submissions, Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the preliminary objection of maintaining the writ petition has been correctly dealt with by the learned Single Judge holding that it was the answering respondents tho were contesting the claim throughout and the respondent No.2 was the Manager when the lis arose and even continues to have a grievance as on date as all the orders have been passed on the dispute raised by the answering respondent No.2. Thus, to say that the respondent No.2 did not have any locus to maintain the petition and there was a wrong description of parties does not hold water.
He submits that any judgment or precedent that is sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants will not come to their aid in view of the peculiar facts of this case where two orders were passed by the Deputy Registrar on the merits of the claim and both the writ petitions were filed by the answering respondent No.2. He further submits that no such plea was either entertained or accepted when the first writ petition was decided on 13.3.2013 which judgment was never assailed either by Sri Hriday Narayan Mishra or the faction to which the appellant also belongs. He then submits that fraud is writ large and has vitiated the entire proceedings before the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar committed a manifest error by avoiding to decide the issue of membership of the general body. He further submits that this error in procedure of the decision making process is clearly amenable to judicial review by this Court as it amounts to a perversity and which did not require any facts to be established. This is a clear case of non-consideration of a vital issue in it's entirety. It is undisputed that the Deputy Registrar has not decided the dispute of the electoral college and has confined himself only to the issue of the membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra. This flaw in the decision making process therefore deserved to be corrected by a writ of certiorari and to that extent, the writ petition was very much maintainable. He therefore contends that the Court itself was not deciding the issue of membership but was rather proceeding to decide the manner in which the decision has been rendered which was obviously not in accordance with law. It is thus urged by Sri Manish Kumar that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in quashing the order and remitting the matter back to the Deputy Registrar to decide the issue raised with regard to the correctness of the electoral college and the rolls maintained in the office of the Deputy Registrar as projected by the faction of the appellant and the answering respondents.
This having not been done the very foundation of the elections held on 1.9.2013 falls through as it directly and materially affects the elections. He contends that judicial notice can be taken of this flaw in the decision making process and therefore the answering respondent does not deserve to be relegated to avail the remedy of a Suit for this purpose. The failure to discharge his obligation renders the order of the Deputy Registrar to be invalid for which the issuance of a writ was necessary and accordingly, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition.
He has further submitted that on the merits of the claim, the answering respondents reiterate that they had raised all these issues about the membership and it was not only confined to the fakeness of the documents from pages 370-385 of the file of the Deputy Registrar as urged on behalf of the appellants. He has invited the attention of the Court to various paragraphs of the objections that were again taken after the judgment dated 13.3.2013 reasserting the issue of fake membership of the entire General Body.
The learned Standing Counsel has also invited the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit of the Deputy Registrar that was filed on behalf of the respondent-State.
Respondent No.7/Man Singh is of the same faction of the appellant Sarju Prasad Dubey as he has been shown to be the President of the Committee said to have been elected of which the appellant No.3 claims to be the Manager. It may be mentioned that Man Singh has also sought impleadment for being heard before the Deputy Registrar to which objections were filed by the respondent No.2.
Thus, all parties are represented and we have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire records.
The first issue is about the maintenance of the writ petition on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It may be put on record that the tenure of the Committee of Management is stated to be five years. The respondent No.2 claimed himself to be the Manager of the Committee when the dispute arose. The fact that the dispute arose in 2010 after the alleged elections of 2008 therefore cannot be ignored. It is the pendency of this tenure of five years between 2008-2013 that the dispute was decided twice by the Deputy Registrar one on 13.7.2010 and the next on 6.8.2013. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 therefore had a right to depict themselves for raising a challenge to the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar which had proceeded to recognize the faction of Hriday Narayan Mishra in 2010 and then his successor Sri Sarju Prasad Dubey on 6.8.2013. In this background, the respondent No.2 was an aggrieved person and he had a right to challenge the orders of the Deputy Registrar before whom he had been contesting his right to manage the affairs of the Society throughout. In this background, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the preliminary objections that had been raised before him and we do not find any reason to differ from the said view. Thus, the argument of locus standi and incorrect description of parties is rejected as raised on behalf of the appellants.
The next issue is with regard to the status of the order dated 13.7.2010 which was under challenge in Writ Petition No.5043 (MS) of 2010. The appellants contend that the said order of the Deputy Registrar had not been quashed and the only observation that was made was about the membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra. Thus, the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 13.3.2013 which has become final, and was not assailed by any of the parties should be read so as to confine the decision by the Deputy Registrar only in respect of Hriday Narayan Mishra. We are unable to accept the aforesaid proposition for the reasons already recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and also for the reason that the genesis of the dispute arose from the alleged fake claim of Hriday Narayan Mishra who was representing the management and had been recognized as such alongwith his membership by the Deputy Registrar under the order dated 13.7.2010. From the representations and objections that had been previously filed before the Deputy Registrar by Ram Nath Mishra when the decision was rendered on 13.7.2010, we find that the entire issue of membership of the General Body had been raised in the objections filed. The order of the Deputy Registrar dated 13.7.2010 was not accepted by this Court under the judgment dated 13.3.2013 mainly on the ground of the issue of the membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra. However, while deciding the matter, the learned Single Judge did not recognize the elections of Hriday Narayan Mishra and his alleged committee, and rather superseded the Committee by handing over the control and the affairs of the Society to the Principal of the Government Inter College, Ambedkar Nagar . A further direction was given to the Deputy Registrar that he would accordingly examine the issue of elections afresh. This is clearly stated in the judgment and is extracted herein "and accordingly shall examine the issue of election afresh". The intention and observations were therefore clearly directed not only to decide the issue of membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra but of the entire election set up by him based on the disputed electoral college that had been recognized by the Deputy Registrar on 13.7.2010. The main point that impelled the learned Judge was definitely the issue of the date of birth of Hriday Narayan Mishra. The only inference which can be drawn from a reading of the entire judgment is that the Deputy Registrar was required to go into the entire issue as his order dated 13.7.2010 had not been approved. Thus, the contention on behalf of the appellants that the said judgment is final and the issue of the membership of the General Body cannot be reopened is thus liable to be rejected, inasmuch as the issue of the membership of the General Body was directly involved with the issue of elections set up by Hriday Narayan Mishra. Any other conclusion would be contrary to the intention of the judgment dated 13.3.2013. The issue of membership of the General Body had to be determined which was the bone of contention including the membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra. We therefore hold that the issue of membership had to be decided and was very much open for determination before the Deputy Registrar including the status of the elections as depicted by Hriday Narayan Mishra.
We are further fortified in our view on account of the subsequent order of the Deputy Registrar dated 6.8.2013 which is the subject matter of challenge in this controversy. The Deputy Registrar ultimately found the membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra to be invalid as he was a minor. Not only his election therefore automatically fell through and he could not be recognized as Manager. This order of the Deputy Registrar dated 6.8.2013 has not been questioned by Hriday Narayan Mishra. It is thus clear that the issue of Hriday Narayan Mishra has become a fait accompli and therefore, the elections setup by him were found to be invalid. The question is if the very creator of the electoral college was found to be not a valid member of the Society, was it not the obligation of the Deputy Registrar to have entered into the aforesaid issue? To our mind, this was incumbent upon the Deputy Registrar to have entered into the objections with regard to the membership of the entire electoral college but the Deputy Registrar abruptly without any decision or finding, approved all the 24 members who had allegedly participated in the elections held on 1.9.2013.
On the issue of the power of the Deputy Registrar to decide membership, Dr. L. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute the legal position that such a power is available to the Deputy Registrar under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as applicable in the State of U.P. In our opinion also, the Deputy Registrar has failed to exercise his authority in this regard on the most important issue which ought to have been gone into for holding of any fresh elections. Further, the fact that the previous elections setup by Hriday Narayan Mishra would not be recognized and fresh elections deserve to be held was accepted by the faction of Hriday Narayan Mishra including the appellant who was shown to be a member of the General Body as depicted by Hriday Narayan Mishra. The appellant also did not question the authority of the Deputy Registrar to hold fresh elections.
In such a situation, if the Deputy Registrar was to hold fresh elections, and if objections had been filed against the membership again before him before holding of the elections on 1.9.2013, then the Deputy Registrar was under an obligation to have decided the issue of membership. It is apparent from the objections raised by the respondent No.2 at every stage that he had been contesting the very electoral college of 24 members of the Deputy Registrar indicating it to be the fake list which was not adjudicated upon considering the objections of the respondent No.2 in the order dated 6.8.2013. In our opinion, this was a blatant flaw in the order of the Deputy Registrar who under a wrong impression or otherwise a deliberate wrong procedure adopted by him, did not choose to decide the issue of the dispute of membership and the electoral college entitled to participate in the elections. The decision making process was therefore clearly vitiated and the Deputy Registrar failed to decide an issue that went to the root of the matter. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in exercising a writ of Certiorari and issuing a direction to decide the matter again. We therefore fully endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge on this count as well.
We for all the reasons recorded here-in-above decline to interfere with the impugned judgment with a direction to the Deputy Registrar to decide the issue of the membership of the General Body keeping in view the objections raised by the respondent No.2 from time to time and after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
Since the Principal, Government Inter College, Ambedkar Nagar had continued to manage the affairs of the Society after 13.3.2013 under the directions of the learned Single Judge and which was not challenged, we do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid direction as well under the impugned judgment.
We however clarify that the Deputy Registrar shall decide the issue of membership in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge and what has been stated above, but since the parties are not at variance on the issue of membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra being rightly annulled, quashing of the order dated 6.8.2013 would not amount to reviving the issue of the decision of the membership of Hriday Narayan Mishra which would be treated to have become final between the parties to this appeal.
The Special Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.